New submission from Antony Lee: I believe that the implementation of Condition._is_owned is wrong, as mentioned here: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-October/632682.html. Specifically, the two return values (True and False) should be inverted.
I guess this slipped through as this private function would only be called if one passed to a Condition object a (R)Lock-like object that doesn't define _is_owned. (I noticed this when I tried to pass a custom-written reader-writer lock to a Condition object.) Technically, the docs says that "If the lock argument is given and not None, it must be a Lock or RLock object", but in practice anything that defines acquire(), release() (and possibly _is_owned()) should work. ---------- components: Library (Lib) messages: 208063 nosy: Antony.Lee priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Condition._is_owned is wrong _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20247> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
